<p>I'm secretly watching the progress of a friend's son who has great stats, great grades, and does nothing else....he comes home from school, does homework, watches TV and plays videogames. He is aiming very high, school-wise, and I'll be very interested to see who wants him and who doesn't.</p>
<p>^^^ Yep, I made a resume that I think represents my activities really well and uploaded it. </p>
<p>^^ I've done community service stuff in various areas, some of which is sort of leadership-related... tutoring and what not... but nothing that screams "leader." </p>
<p>Oh well; I'll represent myself as honestly as possible and hope they see something in me, lol. I think that leadership is overrated, though; not every profession that requires intelligence requires a Type A personality... </p>
<p>^ Haha, well, fill us in when you find out. XD</p>
<p>^ Play the hand you have as much as possible. A friend told me, "Don't pick which cards to play. When you're shooting for selective schools, you play ALL of them." </p>
<p>If you have anything that deals with leadership at all, I would strongly suggest emphasizing that as much as possible. Also, if you've demonstrated initiative in independent studies or any extracurricular projects, that would also benefit your application in my opinion. Basically, something to offset the great stats in the application (you want to give them a reason to love you). Remember, maximize the reward.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes...just...yes. Its so stupid how over-emphasized leadership is by so many people.</p>
<p>Baelor, don't you know how to quote? Or are you just not doing it?</p>
<p>Yes, I do know how to quote. I didn't feel the need to, however. Did I do something wrong?</p>
<p>Oh no, I just thought it might have been easier than having to say "above, above post".</p>
<p>Well, I posted it and double-posted with yours. Then I realized that I was inadvertently saying that your post was totally wrong. :p So I just did a quick fix.</p>
<p>Oh, okay. That makes sense.</p>
<p>American universities (and those elsewhere in the world, but especially American ones) have developed into highly efficient profit-generating machines; their admissions policies reflect this. Colleges have discovered that while intelligence may correlate with financial success, leadership ability is also an important factor (if not the paramount factor). Consequently, they'll take the George Bushes of this world over the Grigory Perelmans any day. You're perfectly correct in saying that many jobs don't require a Type A personality; however, colleges select students based on their own monetary interests, not because of a moral assessment of admissions criteria.</p>
<p>So uh, while we're totally talking about me:</p>
<p>In terms of making myself stand out in essays, I'm kinda torn. I've written two: the first, which I'm pretty sure I'm going to use for the CommonApp, is about my interest in neuroscience and has a cute little anecdote and what not; I really like it and think it represents me well. </p>
<p>I saw a list of topics from one of my schools' supplements, and one was something to the effect of, "Write about a personal interest that doesn't come across in your application." So I wrote an essay about my love for death metal, which I also think represents me and presents an interest part of my personality. (Also something unique I can bring to campus -- heavy metal club, anyone? Anyone?!)</p>
<p>Then, I found out that this school (Brown btw) changed their prompts and now probably won't have one that will allow me to write about death metal... and I dunno if any of my other schools will... :(</p>
<p>...WHEREAS a few will probably ask about my prospective major. So I could use the neuroscience one for that. But I have a lot more to say about neuroscience and could easily write a second essay. But then I wouldn't have anywhere to talk about death metal!! :(</p>
<p>So um, any opinions on neuroscience vs. death metal?</p>
<p>edit:
But I don't think that a track record of how many times you've bothered to run for an officer position in a school club is really representative of leadership ability, in the first place. Having an officer position in a club in my school, the vast majority of the time, only says of the person that they know that colleges like applicants with officer positions...</p>
<p>You could use the death metal one for the CommonApp (one of the prompts or "select your own"). Then use the neuroscience ones for the supplements or whatever.</p>
<p>The danger with neuroscience as the CommonApp essay is that unless you have a lot of research in that field, it may not be the best positioning effort. If you're trying to combat a lack of ECs, focusing on an academic subject that you haven't pursued extensively EC-wise may be risky. If you have pursued a lot of research or independent work in that area, then it would be a great topic -- it shows dedication to a field, and leadership in the other ECs may not be important in that respect.</p>
<p>Well, traits such as a willingness to do whatever is required of you (such as joining clubs for solely admissions-related purposes), sycophancy and popularity (which oftentimes result in officer positions), extroversion (which is detectable in the interview as well as through one's resume to an extent), etc., are all conducive to monetary success later in life. It's not really how well you can lead that's important, but rather your ability to assume a leadership role (through whatever means necessary). Such a desire and capacity to "claw your way to the top" is highly valued.</p>
<p>Someone on CC told me my ECs were unimpressive so I was gonna post here, but then I realized his opinion means nothing to me, lol.</p>
<p>The CC school of thought is that you need one or two ECs that you have devoted your entire life to and have won national/international awards for, and quirky little essays about your hands/hair/favorite kind of pizza, in addition to top academics, in order to get into top schools. I'm still skeptical about the former two provisions. As somebody said before, I don't think colleges are all looking for the same kind of student, and because ECs are often pushed by parents before high school (athletics/music) or teachers/class requirements (AMC/Intel/Siemens/etc.), I don't think such a deluge of national/state awards/rankings or club leadership is as necessary as CC makes it out to be. However, colleges don't want bookworms, and will have no problem using ECs as tiebreakers.</p>
<p>^But a compelling personality is also important. Why do perfect scorers get rejected? Obviously, some might not contribute anything to campus life beyond doing well in the classes. One needs to show that he can contribute outside of the classroom. ECs can do this. But a great essay can do that as well. That's why for people who don't have as many ECs, the essay is critical. Why are you unique? What makes you different from the tons of other high scorers? A Princeton admissions dean told us that she read an essay about a boy who loved math but wanted to kiss a girl before graduation. He wrote up a mathematical solution for how to do so. The adcom was really excited about having him on campus. They want to admit students, so the essays need to give them a reason to want to. Show another side of your personality, and use it as a way to make up for apparent "deficiencies" in other areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize that people with great ECs and not-amazing stats should get the places in top schools, for the reasons that (a) stats don't represent intelligence in the first place and (b) people who actually do things are obviously going to be more successful in the future...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What a retarded statement. ECS demonstrate your willingness to engage in activities and possibly your extroverted personality. Grades and SATs absolutely demonstrate your intellect, individually they are not perfect, but together they are the best indicators that exist. At my school people preferr to socialize, work out, play sports and a host of other activities other than go to prearranged club meetings. ECs are a convenient way to look at someones "contribution to their community" but they are really very limiting. I know so many people who go to great universities, with mediocre ECs and I promise you when I get my acceptances it will be the same. ECs are important, but they have nothing on your grades and sat scores, which are by far the most important parts of your application. Trust me you can get into Harvard with bad ECs, but with a crappy or mediocre gpa or sat its almost impossible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Princeton admissions dean told us that she read an essay about a boy who loved math but wanted to kiss a girl before graduation. He wrote up a mathematical solution for how to do so.
[/quote]
Thats hilarious, I heard the same story when I visited in march from a female adcom. I thought she was awful though...so boring and unhelpful. Also I just want to add that while people with perfect scores get rejected, I think you need to realize that for HYPS 50% of people with perfect scores get accepted, which is 5x more than the normal acceptance rate. So its not like they just reject them like anyone else.....their chances are much better due to that perfect score.</p>
<p>Also I would say that grades and sat scores can be a much better predictor of success than ECs....as ECs can be manufactured or require little to no intellectual engagement to have, while the same cannot be said of the other two admissions criteria. Too really get ahead in life, personality is important, but intellect is even more important.</p>
<p>^ Agreed to everything. Our adcom was a bundle of energy, and was really helpful. It dawned on me at that point (due to her spiel, which focused on it) that the essay is critical. It's what convinces the adcoms to fight for you. The regional people need to present a strong case to the whole committee, and the essay is a huge factor for them.</p>
<p>Baelor -- Thanks for the essay advice. I think that I might tailor my CommonApp essay to different schools individually based on their supplemental essays. </p>
<p>ANYWAYS, back on topic.</p>
<p>Bescraze -- I agree that ECs are given too much weight (see milessmiles' post -- echoes my sentiments exactly.) I disagree that SAT + GPA are infallibly representative of intellect (but agree that they are the best measure universities have.) I doubt that one can "get into Harvard with bad ECs" -- as repzolow said, "Practically everyone at 1st-tier universities (Ivies, Stanford, MIT, CIT, etc) HAVE super stats. The thing is, they also have super ECs." But hey, maybe they can: that's what this thread is designed to find out.</p>
<p>...I know I keep contradicting myself and changing my mind, lol. I just think that everything is important and overrated all at once, and which side I argue for depends on my mood of the second. I'm just confused, haha.</p>
<p>Double-posting because I've reached some kind of conclusion: </p>
<p>Contention 1: I think that students with above-average numbers and amazing ECs are desirable candidates due to the qualities that their distinction in certain areas may represent.<br>
Contention 2: I, contrary to what I hear from everyone else in the world, think that students with amazing numbers and mediocre ECs are desirable candidates, because ECs aren't necessarily representative of "passion" or "ambition" or whatever else they're supposed to be indicative of, nor is a lack of outstanding ECs a signification of a dearth of such personal assets. </p>
<p>Resolution: There aren't enough spots in the schools that all of these kids are applying to. :(</p>
<p>True! That is the sad conclusion. But there are many top universities, with many spots available.</p>
<p>Remember, universities want PEOPLE. Or at least say that. If you are great stat-wise and come off as an exceptional person in your essays/interview, then they will probably look over the decent ECs.</p>